Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< June 12 << May | June | Jul >> June 14 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


Contents


[edit] June 13

[edit] Civilizations

1. What were the political systems in Mesopotamia, Neolithic Age, Paleolithic Age, Ancient Greece, ancient Rome and Middle Ages?

2. How and why societies cahnged in the following civilizations above?

3. How and why some civilizations changed and I mean the following civilizations?

4. What were the religions in those civilizations?

5. What were the writings and writers in those civilizations?

6. What were the battles fought in those civilizations?

7. What were the cultures followed in those civilizations?

8. How did Egypt managed to survive as a civilization for as long as it did?

9. Which civilizations made more contributions to the world? Greece or Rome?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.88 (talk • contribs) for #9, I meant contributions like Pythagorean Theorem was contributed by Pythagoras, for example. for #3, I meant which battles did each civilizations have and were they major like Peloponessian War in Ancient Greece, for example.


10. How did such civilizations make their students do their homework by themselves? -- JackofOz 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC) This is not for homework. I made it up. this is the truth.

That was brilliant Jack :-) The Mad Echidna 14:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I linked the hell out of your questions. Click the links and maybe you'll learn something. Well, since this is summer school time, I'm not expecting much. Youth in Asia 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Those are dreadful questions... especially (to my mind) numbers 3, 6 and 7. And number 9 is both ridiculous and unanswerable. Define "more" - numerically or qualitatively? Define "world" - modern world? The planet? Define "contributions". Not to mention the problems of unpicking what was wholly Roman from that which was Greek. Ugh, ugh ugh. The teacher should be sent back to college, if indeed they ever went. --Dweller 09:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Back to college to take core classes, perhaps. The problem is that the teacher probably has provided a very, very small set of data and is going for retrieval from the students. If "according to our book" had been added to each of those, the matter would be settled, but the generalizations in the questions suggest some unforgivable naivety. Utgard Loki 13:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Lambiam covered this before. This person is probably a school student, and the questions appear to come straight from a textbook or something. Utgard Loki has it almost right, only the textbook probably makes it quite clear that these are only intended as comprehension questions. This is how school history classes try to get students started, and banal though it may be, it's better than what they often get in Australia, which is sometimes just to chat about their opinions on things and do a quick power point presentation. If we adopt the response of sending the students to the textbook, and point out to them that they have simply misunderstood the teacher's intstructions, they will walk sheepishly off, and listen better in class next time. The Mad Echidna 14:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Is question 9 asking what have the Romans ever done for us?. Cyta 08:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per capita incomes of various religious communities of the world

Can anyone of you calculate for me the following?

The per capita income (average for the world) of the following communities. 1.Christians 2.Hindus 3.Jews 4.Chinese Taoists 5.Muslims

They're unlikely to be able to do this with any degree of accuracy. Aside from thorny old issues like "who is a Jew", as members of these religions are diffused among the nations of the world, their economic statistics cannot be pulled apart from one another, nor indeed, from those of atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Bahai, Sikhs etc etc. Sorry. I suspect that the lot of "average" Hindus etc will vary according to the societies in which they're living, rendering the whole exercise meaningless anyway. My guess is that as North America, Arabia and Europe possess such a huge proportion of the world's wealth, groups 1,3 and 5 will greatly outstrip groups 2 and 4 because there's a good proportion of adherents living on those continents, but that's merely my speculation; my point though is that even if it accurate, it would reflect not any impact attributable to religion, but merely sociogeographics. --Dweller 09:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Dweller is right that these numbers would be impossible to obtain, because few if any government statistical offices gather or publish information on income by religion. Dweller is also right that the numbers would not be very meaningful because of vast geographic (rather than religious) disparities in income. Marco polo 12:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Although its impossible to find the exact numbers, i can speculate for you. Please do not rely on them. In my view the averages should be around $50000 for Jews, $30000 for christians, $15000 for Muslims, $4000 for chinese Taoists and around $2500 for Hindus. I am again reminding you that you dont rely on them, its just my own speculation.nids(♂) 19:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi war economy

To what extent was the German economy geared for war in 1939? Captainhardy 10:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can start by reading up on the economy of the Weimar Republic and later, Todt's Four Year Plan. Wolfgangus 12:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to make the point that 1939 was a surprise war for Hitler. He actually didn't want it until 1940 - so by any measure, it was never going to be quite ready, because it wasn't designed to be ready by 1939.martianlostinspace 16:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume, martianlostinspace, that you mean the declaration of war by Britain and France in September 1939 came as something as a surprise to Hitler, since he had assurances from Ribbentrop to the contrary? However, the war with Poland was certainly no 'surprise', as he had taken every conceivable step, both in military and diplomatic terms, to bring it about.
Until 1936 Hitler had pursued a fairly cautious political and economic path, avoiding any major upset that might have triggered intervention by the western allies. The decisive test that year came with the re-militarisation of the Rhineland, contrary to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Once over that hurdle he became progressively bolder, and the economy was, indeed, put on a war footing with the introduction of the Four Year Plan in October 1936. The ethos behind the new direction the German economy was outlined by Hitler in a memorandum in August, in which he stressed that war was both desirable and inevitable-"The extent of the military development of our forces cannot be too large, nor its pace too swift." Bearing in mind the weaknesses of the Germany economy in 1914, and its vulnerability to blockade, considerable emphasis was placed on the reduction of dependency on imports. Re-armament, in other words, proceeded hand-in-hand with a programme of autarky, ensuring that Germany had as many alternative sources of supply as possible. There was also an agrarian programme to increase domestic yields, and thus avoid a repeat of the 'turnip winter' of 1917-18, when Germany tottered on the verge of mass starvation.
Yes, Hitler was ready for a war in 1939; yes, the German economy had reached a point that made such a war possible. By 1938-9 the military budget was taking up over 50% of state spending, compared with 24% of a much smaller budget in 1914. However, what Germany was not ready for-and I think this is the point that martianlostinspace is making-was a general war, because many of the capital projects necessary to sustain a prolonged conflict were not scheduled for completion until 1942. The very nature of the Nazi system, moreover, actually worked aginst maximum efficiency and effective co-ordination. It was a mass of competing political, personal and bureacratic interests, about as far from a true 'totalitarianism' as is possible to imagine. Also, the 'total war economy' required that a balance had to be maintained in patterns of investment, which meant that arms production-particularly in heavy weapons-was falling well short of what Germany was capable. Lightning war-Blitzkrieg-was not just desirable; it was a military and economic necessity. When the small wars merged into one big War; when short-term expediency became long-term necessity, then the real problems started. Clio the Muse 23:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The origins of Meral

Hello there,

I am trying to find the orgins of a name coming from the ancient hisotory of tatars used even nowdays: Meral. I supose that a legend should be under this name. Can you help me, please? ...

Many thanks in advance.

Narcisa

I believe it's Turkish. In English it means something like 'female deer'. Not sure if this is what you're after, but it's a start. You can also look up 'Maral', which holds a similar meaning in Armenian. Wolfgangus 11:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
In English, 'female deer' is usually a placeholder name. I wonder whether that's true in any other language. —Tamfang 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It is? Corvus cornix 21:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Doe, a deer, a female deer...--Charlene 03:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of Information Act/Data Protection Act

I am trying to request some information in the UK from AQA exam board, regarding which centres offer a certain GCE course. I have been told that they cannot tell me because of the Data Protection Act. However, I was wondering if there is any grounding of me claiming under the Freedom of Information Act. Surely the DPA is there to protect personal data, and the FOI act means I can make a claim? Any knowledge you have about the acts would be greatly appreciated. I know you are not supposed to ask for legal advice, but I thought this sufficently un-serious to be ok.

Many thanks

--Fadders 13:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, I'm afraid, but I find it astonishing that the AQA are telling you that you can't find out which centres offer a particular course. If that information is not readily available, how on earth are you supposed to know where to go to take the course? --Richardrj talk email 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not fully clear to me what the question was you put to the AQA. When enquiring after "centres" offering this course (which one?), did you mean educational institutions, such as schools and colleges? Why did you approach an exam board with the question? I see no reason to assume that the AQA have an overview of all institutions offering that course. What they will have is information on their customers: those institutions they actually provide the GSCE qualifications for. I see no reason why they should make information on their customers publicly available. I don't think the AQA is a public authority in the sense of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  --LambiamTalk 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reform Mormonism

I am surprised the Reform Mormonism article has been deleted. Apparently, some have judged that there is no such thing as Refrom Mormonism and that it is all an internet church.

Reform Mormonism is a registered religion. It is not a virtual church. It is not a church: It's a home-based religion. The article was accurate: Reform Mormonism is NOT a sect from the LDS Church and does not try to reform the LDS Church. It is an independent religion that takes its doctrines from Joseph Smith.

I've been practising this religion and would appreciate if an article related to it was restored.

Thank you

FrenchExpat

Reform Mormonism was deleted because it lacked reliable sources and thus verifiability. If independent sources can establish that the church/religion/other qualifier actually exists, then there's no reason Wikipedia can't have an article. If, however, it's one guy and some buddies at his house every week -- that's not encyclopedic. — Lomn 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Registered with whom? —Tamfang 19:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Military Conflicts

Since, and including the war of independence, has the US military 'won' any military conflicts when operating alone, and without 'on the ground' military support and personnel from allied nations?

We can only think of the Spanish-American War and the Invasion of Grenada in the carribean. This does not include domestic conflicts such as the Indian Conflicts or the US Civil war.

I would imagine that the term 'won' would mean that forces were deployed in active combat, the situation was resolved either in the favour of the US or where peace was maintained for at least 5 years after the departure of military personnel or 10 years if a token force remained as peacekeepers and were not engaged in further conflict during that time.

Jon Mills83.148.88.37

I think that the Mexican_American_War would qualify. -Czmtzc 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Ever hear a little ditty that goes :"From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli...?" Europe resolutely refused to act against the Barbary Pirates and the US Navy and Marines did what needed doing. (I would not count some Arab and Berber mercenaries who accompanied the Marines in an overland attack as "allied nations"). The US pretty much kicked ass won in the Mexican-American War without outside help (unless you count the Texans as outsiders). And what "allied nations" helped the US in the Spanish-American War? Kicked ass won again. Ditto for the conquest of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Picked up some serious territory in these conflicts/conquests. Ditto for the Philippine-American War and various invasions/occupations of Central American countries. Edison 18:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the OP already mentioned thre Spanish war, and the Barbary wars didn't really pacify the Arab pirates. The Phillippine war is a good one though.144.160.98.31 19:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on the US war with the Barbary pirates say that the pirates stopped interfering with US shipping after the two conflicts.Edison 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What allied nations helped in the S. Pacific of WWII (ie: Midway and Iwo Jima)? I don't really remember any, unless you want to count those "wind talkers". --Kainaw (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither Midway Atoll nor Iwo Jima are in the South Pacific, and our article on the Pacific War lists a number of allies.—eric 19:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I can foresee a severe tongue-lashing for you from JackofOz or one of his compatriots, along with sundry Kiwis, Dutch, etc.
Midway order of battle lists only US forces up against the Japanese forces at the Battle of Midway. No Kiwis, no Dutch, no "etc." Were there Allied forces there that are not mentioned in the article? Ditto for Battle of Iwo Jima Granted, these were "battles," not wars, but the magnitude of the forces involved and the casualties exceed some other wars mentioned on this page. Edison 23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your IP address suggests you are in Amsterdam. Were there any conflicts in the 2oth century which the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain and/or France "won" when operating alone and without crying asking for the U.S to come and save them from the Germans? Edison 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Suez Crisis, Falklands War.—eric 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Britain also won the Second Boer War and many other smaller conflicts without any discernable help from the United States. The First World War was won before the United States was able to make a significant contribution in terms of soldiers on the ground; and at no point did the United Kingdom 'cry' for anyone to come and save it from the Germans, which it had managed to do quite successfully on its own. Now, when it comes to crying for help, I seem to remember reading about appeals President Johnson made to Harold Wilson, a former British Prime Minister, for assistance with a certain war in south-east Asia. However, I am being mildly polemical, and I think these questions should be discussed free from artificial investments of misplaced national pride. Clio the Muse 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats a rather belligerent comment Edison, that doesnt belong here. The question is legitimate but many of these answers and comments are of dubious value. It would be a good idea for some contributers to consider how their nation conducted some of these wars - or adventures - before bragging about their single handed feats of arms ( if you'll excuse the oxymoron )  : ) Mhicaoidh 03:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In WW1 The Allies had the Germans so "defeated" that they were 75 miles from Paris in March 1918 and hitting it with long range artillery when the US began sending its 4 million draftees into the war at the rate of 10,000 per day. 260,000 American soldiers went "over the top" September 26, 1918 against the Hindenberg Line. Ludendorf recommended an armistice October 1, and the Armistice took effect Nov. 11. When would the armistice have taken place without the 10,000 US soldiers a day thrown into the fight? In WW2 the countries enumerated above were again in dire straits before the entry of the US in the war. Churchill was quite eager for the US to enter WW2, after the Germans defeated the French, Belgian, Dutch,and British expeditionary forces in just over a month. The US then sent equipment to resupply Britain after they had to leave their equipment behind at Dunkirk. They finished paying the US back in 2006. Thanks! Edison 04:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And thank you! Please do not misunderstand me: I was not in any sense trying to disparage the American contribution to the Great War. But the point remains that by November 1918 it was the potential of the United States, the capacity to send virtually unlimited reserves to Europe, that made the biggest contribution to victory, not the actual number of men on the ground by that time. The Michael offensive had been designed to break the Allies before the Americans could arrive in sufficient strength. When it failed to do so, there was nothing left. It might help if you studied the actual field operations of 1918, particularly those involving the advance of the British army in Flanders, to appreciate the point I am trying to make, rather than shooting from the hip in a somewhat emotional fashion. Britain, contrary to your contention, was not in 'dire straits' in December 1941, having defeated the Germans in the Battle of Britain, which meant the indefinite postponement of Hitler's invasion plans. Of course Churchill was anxious for American aid, and US entry into the War was invaluable: the invasion of Europe in 1944 would have been impossible without American power. Even so, the British people did not 'cry' for such aid, and would have gone on fighting without it. What would the end result have been? It's very difficult to say; but I personally feel that Stalin would still have defeated Hitler, which would have left all of Europe, right up to the Channel coast, under the control of Communism. Would that have been in America's interest? Also, I would suggest, Edison, that you look in a little more detail at some of the wars where America 'kicked ass', to use your colourful expression. Some of the 'ass' kicked, especially in the Phillipines, central America and the other imperial and semi-imperial wars, is not worthy of your 'sabre-rattling' pride. I regret you have seen fit to tackle this in such emotional and nationalistic terms. It is clearly something you feel strongly about; but I would suggest that you stand back just a step or two. I have no wish to upset you further, so I propose to add nothing more to this discussion. Let me just say, in concluding, that I for one am glad that the United States exists, despite its many faults and misjudgements, and my country does indeed owe a great deal to yours. I hope you are able to understand my points and accept them with just a little less passion. My best wishes. Clio the Muse 05:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
By the original poster's definition of 'won' meaning "that forces were deployed in active combat, the situation was resolved either in the favour of the US or where peace was maintained for at least 5 years after the departure of military personnel or 10 years if a token force remained as peacekeepers and were not engaged in further conflict during that time", then I'm not sure either the Spanish-American War of the Philippine-American War can be counted. I recently read Sarah Vowell's book Assassination Vacation, which explores both wars and describes the continued guerilla war and insurgency conflicts that followed the peace treaties between the US and Spain. For example, according to the Cuba page, while Cuban independence was established in 1902, the US retained the right of intervention, which it used in 1906 when armed revolt broke out. The Philippine-American War points out that armed resistance continued to at least 1913. Pfly 05:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I thought the Ref Desk was for answering questions, not a soapbox etc . I do suggest to contributers that the debate you are engaging in would best be continued on your talk pages. Mainly because its Wikipedia practice, but secondly because you two seem to be avidly representing the views of your respective nations, and whatever your views are regarding the justification and glorious outcomes of your respectiive histories in foreign intervention, you seem blithely unaware of the misery your crusades have showered upon the rest of the worlds population and the lines you have drawn which have landed us in the mess of the moment . This is an encyclopaedia , not the "United" Nations. Mhicaoidh 11:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The question can be answered in a way which is NPOV and based on reliable sources. The article on the Spanish American war indicates that the war was resolved on terms which favored the US, satisfying the original question's requirement. Similarly, the Phillipine war was resolved on terms favoring the US. I had to object strongly to the trollish tone of the question that implied that the US somehow always found itself in wars where the allies had to come and help us, and I sought to clarify that in the two world wars the US provided an enormous economic and blood sacrifice to aid European allies, while noting that in other major wars the US defended itself quite well without assistance. Note that the aid from the French King and his naval and military forces was extremely important in the American Revolution. At that time the US was a nation in name only, more a squabbling collection of rebel colonies than a distinct country with a constitution or an elected strong national government, which did not obtain until years after the end of the war. Clio, you are in a better position to see in what terms Churchill asked Roosevelt for aid when he became Prime Minister during the 5 week rout of allied forces in France/Belgium/Holland, leading to Roosevelt sending Britain the 50 destroyers and other aid. The wartime correspondence is not available online that I can find. Perhaps it was a "request for help" instead of a "cry for help?" The French Premier Reynaud's final broadcast was definitely a cry for help. The military equipment of over 300,000 soldiers had to be abandoned in France, and trucks were actually repainted and put to use by the Germans. See Time magazine of June 24, 1940 with such articles as [1] for a contemporary acount of the rout. Britain had lost 11 destroyers in 10 days. The US sent 50 destroyers as replacements. How long would Britain have held out without the supply lines from the US, with US naval escorts on a wartime basis? Then came Lend Lease, then came Pearl Harbor and the US entry into the war. The Battle of Britain, an effective use of fighter planes, prevented the prompt invasion of the island, but was Britain in any position to retake the continent, even with the assistance of the rest of the empire? The statement was made that President Johnson asked the British for aid in the Vietnam war. I am not aware that British forces participated in that bloody conflict. There were as I recall some South Korean and Australian forces. The US, with Wilson's 14 Points, and later in the Atlantic Charter had called for self determination and the freeing of colonies, as happened for the Phillipine Islands after World War 2 and Cuba after the Spanish Ameerican War. Per Vietnam war, Ho Chi Minh declared independence at the end of WW2, with US soldiers standing with him on the podium, and pledged friendship with the US, and cited the US Declaration of Independence. He cited Roosevelt's statements that the US opposed a resumption of European colonialism. The Potsdam Conference turned the Vietnam over European and Chinese forces, and the French bargained with the British and Chinese for exclusive rights to re-occupy the country. France wanted her colonies back after WW2, leading to the anti-colonial forces defeating the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, leading to the perceived need to fight the North Vietnamese in the Vietnam War. Was the US a needy nation asking Europe to help us in Vietnam, or was the Vietnam War a legacy of European powers trying to regain and maintain a colonial empire when the time for that had passed? Edison 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Clio said that "by November 1918 it was the potential of the United States, the capacity to send virtually unlimited reserves to Europe, that made the biggest contribution to victory, not the actual number of men on the ground by that time." The article Western Front (World War I) says that by 1918 the French army had shifted to a defensive status, with mutinies affecting 54 divisions. It says the Americans were in the fight in divisional strength by October 1917. By March 1918, after the Russians exited the war, the Germans had 192 divisions on the western front against 173 allied divisions, and that "the Allies still lacked a unified command and suffered from morale and manpower problems: the British and French armies were sorely depleted, and American troops had not yet transitioned into a combat role." The Americans won the Battle of Cantigny, the Battle of Château-Thierry (1918) and the Battle of Belleau Wood in June 1918. American forces were entering the area of combat at 300,000 per month, and 2.1 million were in the war by the end. This is an actual presence and not a potential presence or a threat of future action. Certainly most of the front was in the hands of the other allied nations even at the end of hostilities, and by far most of the casualties in the war were not American. In a spirit of amicability, I agree with the sentiments set down in a 1919 recording by Thomas Edison [2] "..the war could not have been won if the Belgian, the British, the French and the Italians had not fought like bulldogs in the face of overwhelming odds." Edison 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As the original poster of the question, can I assume that we are left with the Spanish American War, and the American Phillipine Conflict?

I am suprised at the tone of some of the responses, as this is a serious question relating to miliary historical facts, and should not be used as an excuse to rubbish the contribution of past allies in both lives and material.

In response to a particular post I am from the UK and not Holland, I am British, my father was a US citizen, I work in Bulgaria, and I have served in three armies and five conflicts. I am studying the effect different command, control and material resources of armed forces are either helped or hindered in conflict by the core abilities of the 'common' soldier, and how this is affected by the society from which they are drawn. 20:04, 15 June 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonM267 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your postings with four tildes. The question seemed to have a presupposed point of view and an argumentative tone, which may explain the tone of the response. You might wish to read the article United States , as well as Military history of the United States , and List of United States military history events . The Indian Wars were not really internal matters,or domestic conflicts because they were a separate nation, or a confederation of nations, until they were conquered in in the series of wars ending in the 1890's. Major US victories without allies include the Northwest Indian War ending with a decisive victory in 1794 at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, and Tecumseh's War ending with a victory at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811. The Seminole Wars ended in a US victory, as did the Black Hawk War and the Dakota War of 1862, along with many others. These wars ended with a US victory and with the assimilation of the American Indians or their forced relocation to Indian reservations. Americans generally count the War of 1812 as a victory, despite the burning of the government buildings in Washington DC. The conquest of the Kingdom of Hawaii wasn't much of a war, but the US marines landed, and per the 1893 Blount Report "United States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government." This was retracted in favor of a report with a different conclusion soon after, but the 1993 Apology Resolution supported the conclusions of the Blount report. It was a valuable territorial acquisition, however morally reprehensible imperialism may be by today's standards. By the way, if you read the article Invasion of Grenada you will find that the US had 6 allies in that conflict. Since World War 2, the US has liked to have the appearance of a "coalition" in such fights as Granada or the Global War on Terror, however insignificant the numbers of the allies may be in a given conflict, perhaps to make it look more like a regional police action and less like gunboat diplomacy. A reference [3] for the Granada article says there were nearly 8,000 US combatants with 135 killed or wounded, and no casualties reported among the 353 Caribbean allies. The United States invasion of Panama in 1989 was a US-only operation and could be judged a victory, since the goal was to remove President Manuel Noriega, and he remains in a US prison. Edison 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lenin's testament

How was Stalin able to survive the recommendation in Lenin's testament that he be removed from power? Why did Trotsky not make more effective use of this? This important document receives the barest mention in your pages on Trotsky and Stalin. Fred said right 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Lenin's Testament also criticized Trotsky, which may have been a reason why he chose to downplay its significance. In fact, soon after Lenin's death he wrote an article stating that that the so-called testament consisted just of some of Lenin's notes, and did not constitute a "will":
Vladimir Ilyich did not leave any "will", and the very character of his attitude towards the Party, as well as the character of the Party itself, precluded any possibility of such a "will".
He may have regretted this a year later.  --LambiamTalk 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure he got the "point". Clarityfiend 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The ban on factions (1921) may have played a role. Neutralitytalk 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There was another factor at work here: as a politician Trotsky lacked the 'killer instinct', a rather odd weakness for the man who had organised the Bolshevik victory in the Civil War. Lenin had, in fact, supplied him with enough political explosive to blow Stalin from the scene at the Twelfth Party Congress, held in April 1923; but, in the event, he decided not to use it, instead opting for the worst kind of political compromise. He told Lev Kamenev, Stalin's ally, that while he agreed 'with Lenin in substance', he was against removing Stalin, provided there was 'a radical change' in policies, and that 'honest co-operation' should replace intrigue (Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy: the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924, 1997, pp 801-2). It's almost possible to hear him chopping down the tree with which to fashion his own gallows!

It is also true that the Bolshevik hostility towards factionalism, to which Trotsky made a significant contribution, played a part, though the 'ban' did nothing to prevent him participating in later factional struggles, including that initiated by the United Opposition. However, Trotsky was not the kind of man who made allies easily, and his base of support within the Central Committee and the wider Party was dangerously narrow, his success as Commissar of War and founder of the Red Army nothwithstanding. Indeed, that very success paradoxically made his political position in the Party even weaker; for, with the tendency to draw endless parallels with the French Revolution, there was a deep sensitivity to the possibility of a new 'Napoleon.' For many, moreover, Stalin was still a relative unknown, and it looked at the time as if Grigory Zinoviev, the Petrograd Party boss, was in a better position to replace the ailing Lenin.

Besides, the Testament itself does have a slightly 'eccentric' quality-as Lambiam suggests-criticising virtually the whole of the senior leadership, although Stalin was the only one he recommended for removal. Nikolai Bukharin, for example, is commended as the 'party's most valuable and biggest theoretician' who can only with 'a very great doubt be regarded as fully Marxist.' At the Thirteenth Party Congress in 1924 Stalin's conflict with the former leader was put down to a 'personal clash', with the clear implication that Lenin's physical deterioration had also had an effect upon his mental health. As always, the Owl of Minerva only ever flies at dusk. Clio the Muse 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many people have been killed by the United States?

I want to have a broad picture of how many people have been killed by the various US governments, and if possible classified by president. Democide is the closest I've gotten, but I found no information on the United States. I'm starting to wonder if the lack of this information is POV.

Oskilian 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you count the victims of wars? People receiving the death penalty? What is the criterion you're using?  --LambiamTalk 21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Try Noam Chomsky, politics of Noam Chomsky, and Hegemony or Survival. You might want to read the latter book. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering that there's a war going on *right now* that's killing some largish number of people, but nobody can agree on what that number is, I think it's impossible to do a similar thing for all previous wars and actions without some really heavy hand-waving. --TotoBaggins 01:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you define "killed". For example, if some drug company chooses a particular price point for a new drug and lots of people in Africa cannot afford it and later died. Does that constitute a "killing"? 211.28.131.208 04:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, that wouldn't be "the United States," but rather a corporation, and ownership of corporations these days is hard to pinpoint. Besides which, numbers killed in military actions can always be balanced against numbers saved by those same actions, etc. It may be fashionable, now that Guantanamo Bay has cost the US its moral high ground, to pretend that the nation never had any or to revert to monochromatic views, but doing a calculus of body count is never going to settle any argument. Utgard Loki 13:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Approximately 57,918,313. Marskell 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is trollish and unsuitable for Reference Desk. How can a meaningful, neutral point of view and encyclopedic answer be created? The numbers provided as answers are unsourced. Do you include the enemy dead in the Spanish American War? Do you include the German and other Central Powers forces killed in World War 1? The Axis forces in World War 2? The North Korean and Chinese forces in the Korean Conflict? How does that stack up against the number of people killed by the government of other present western democracies in their histories? Edison 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't trollish, I don't think. People have managed to come up with numbers for the USSR, I don't know why they couldn't come up with numbers for the USA. Whether you interpret them as "justified/legitimate" deaths vs. "illegitimate" is an entirely different quesiton. --24.147.86.187 18:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we just limit it to the 20th century for a start. Just from a quick skimming of articles...
  • World War I: Central Powers had 4.4 million military dead. (But not many of those are by US troops — but I'm not going to try and separate them at this point)
  • World War II: Axis powers had over 12 million military + civilian dead. (Again, the need to seaprate exists, I'm not gonna do it.)
  • Korean War: Communist powers had a little over 1 million dead. (I think this one is mostly by US troops.)
  • Vietnam War: 600,000 Communist dead
  • Gulf War: 22,000 or so Iraqi dead? Maybe as many as 200,000? (controversial)
  • Iraq War: 60,000 or so? (controversial)
  • Capital punishment in the United States: in 20th century average of 100-200 executions a year except for a huge drop in after when it was declared unconstitutional in the late 1960s (reinstated in the 1970s but slow on average to come back up again). My back-of-the-envelope guess puts it at less than 10,000 but I'm just estimating based on a graph.
There are other, smaller international wars and battles and strikes and etc. not included here, but against those big numbers I doubt they add up to too much. I have focused here just on major wars and capital punishment; I have omitted such things as U.S.-propped-up governments or the actions of Allies in peacetime and etc. Whether those should be considered would be a highly contentious question.
So anyway. All of those add up to around 18 million or so dead as a minimum due to direct action of the US government or its allies in a war in which it fought in the 20th century. Which seems pretty low, as far as democide goes, spread out over 100 years and with 60% of that taking place in World War II.
Raw numbers don't tell you everything, of course. Politically the number has no meaning: you can't put US kills of SS troopers in the same category as US kills of V.C. in Vietnam or even US kills of Germans in WWI. They are not morally or contextually analogous. The numbers mix civilian and military deaths which are generally considered to be very different moral categories. And these moral conceptions have themselves shifted over time.
But one could say, if one were inclined, the number is far less than what the Soviet Union did to its own people. It is also a number far smaller than the number of deaths caused by tobacco over the same time period. Anyway, I don't hold it as having a lot of political meaning, as I said before, but that doesn't mean you couldn't do an estimate like that if you wanted to. --24.147.86.187 18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, these are fine numbers, and I'll look more into the US history article to find numbers for each war. And to answer Edison's comment, I'm just asking for a number, not a specific interpretation of it. Raw numbers do tell me important information because I'm doing preliminary biological research on human extinction: a very high percentage of human deaths come from democides, and considering that the United States has done considerable contributions onto this matter (regardless of the reason, for which I don't care), I'd like to include these numbers, which I couldn't find easily. I'd still like to know however, which presidents have been the bloodiest in US history (once again, regardless of the reasons people were killed), but I think I could cross-reference this with war dates so I can have approximate figures. Oskilian 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to add the millions killed by the Soviet Union and Communist China in your figures. Corvus cornix 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder who audits these numbers. If Germany fights Russia, and, say 6 million Germans and 12 million Russians die (counting soldiers and civilians) I wonder if the German leader and the Russian leader would each be charged with being responsible for the deaths of all 18 million people? Would only the "aggressor" be responsible for all the deaths in a war between two countries? Edison 02:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The last time I checked, the Iraqi War claimed the lives of 650,000 making the current US president the "bloodiest" as you term it.[4] --Ghirla-трёп- 07:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

During the fire bombing of tokyo around 80,000 people were killed in one night so I doubt Bush was the "bloodiest" --bur372-трёп-

I would assume that in a list of killing by nation, the USA would be fairly low down in the pecking order. Certainly below the old Soviet Union, China, Japan, and United Kingdom (who may well top the list if you start from the year 1066)! Jonm267JonM267 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

These numbers should have appropriately wide error limits associated with them. I refer the reader to the absurd pseudo precision of "29,927,000" killed by the Mongols in the 14th and 15th centuries, per Democide. The source of this is[5]. I question it satisfying WP:A. The author of that website cites himself as the authority for the USA being guilty of the "democide" per [6] of a mid-estimate of 575,000 people from 1900-1987, with 6,000 due to "camp/labor," 7,000 by "terror", 133,000 by "massacre," and 437,000 by bombing. Rummel gives his breakdown of the detail of the claimed "democide" at [7]. Interestingly, he seems to count as democide in combat only the deaths of the US soldiers. Of course enemy civilians, POWs etc are counted. It seems to have a few flaws, like looking at estimated lynchings per year from the mid 1800's to the early 20th century, then assuming they continued at the same rate through 1987, which is strongly countered by books on lynchings. It is like reading the Devil's Infernal Revenue tax return, to see World War 2 German civilian bombing deaths apportioned to the US and Britain based on tons of bombs dropped. Edison 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyway here is the breakdown from Rummel, in thousands, correlated with US Presidential terms. Remember soldier deaths in wars are only US, except for POWs killed. The little gunboat diplomacy interventions are not included.
  • McKinley-Teddy Roosevelt: 4.5 US, 278 civilians/POWs Phillipine War Total 282
  • Wilson 120. WW1
  • Franklin Roosevelt 407 US soldiers 378 civilians, POWs WW2 Total 485
  • Truman, Eisenhower 54 Korean Conflict
  • Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon 47 US 69 civilians/POWs Vietnam War Total 115

There are no data for after 1987.In the method of Rummel, one could add up US soldiers killed in each Iraq war, plus enemy POWs killed, plus civilians killed by US bombing, or while locked in internment camps. It would likely not include deaths from factions killing each other or from lack of electricity and clean water and good medical care. There were about 2,000 total dead in domestic violence over the 88 year period. The US "Democide total 1900-1987 is 1,056,000 per the above. Note that enemy soldiers killed in battle are not included, people who starved to death in "Hoovervilles" during the Great Depression or who died from other government action.inaction, or destabilization of foreign governments, etc are not included, and that US soldiers killed fighting against the "bad guys" in World War 1 and 2 ARE included in the total, and the total assumes it would have been better to not use the A bomb and instead fight door-to-door through Japan, which others have said would have resulted in high civilian as well as military deaths exceeding those from the A bombs. Edison 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What have Nixon and Castro talked about excatly...

..when they met in the White House? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.207.49 (talk • contribs) 21:10, June 13, 2007 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

Nixon said: How can you smoke those big fat stinky cigars? Castro replied: How can you eat these hamburgers? They are absolutely disgusting. Nixon: Are not! And so on. This reconstruction, based on true facts, may not be completely exact, because such information is normally not made public, beyond some generalities and vague general indications of the topics.  --LambiamTalk 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems unlikely Tricky Dick would have invited the Cuban leader to the White House, although Castro did visit the US and addressed the United Nations. Edison 04:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You will have to wait for the tapes to be released to know exactly ;) 86.132.224.254 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Castro came to the United States on an unofficial visit in April 1959. He was deliberately snubbed by President Eisenhower, suspicious of the Cuban leader's political intentions. He did, however, meet with Vice-President Nixon, though not at the White House. We know in broad outline what the talks were about. Nixon asked about elections and Castro responded by saying that the Cuban people did not want elections, and that they were suspicious of elections which only produced bad government. Nixon also asked about the trial of airmen who had fought for Batista, the former dictator. They had been acquited, though Castro subsequently overturned the judgement of the courts, telling Nixon that he was responding to popular pressure. Nixon also asked Castro about Communism. After Castro left, the Vice-President observed that he was either incredibly naïve about Communism, or already under Communist influence. Nixon's hunch was the latter. Incidentally, Castro did not address the United Nations on this visit, though he has subsequently. You will find the details of the visit, and more besides, here [8]. Clio the Muse 07:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you very much for that information,because I saw a footage of them in a movie about Castro and they both seemed very strange after that meeting,even though they shook hands and answered the media questions.I find it very strange that no one is asking Castro about that conversation,which might have changed the Cuban history,if it turned out different.

Also an interesting thing that movie showed is that Castro recived an "peace offer" by Kennedy and while he was writing a response,Kennedy got killed.I suppose that is explaining why Castro is now prasing Kennedy,even though CIA attempted to kill him under Kennedy rule.Its a funny thing,this movie is showing a video of Castro and President Jimmy Carter in front of the media during Carters visit to Cuba.When Castro starts talking about Kennedy in a not-so-bad way,Carter looks shocked.Some jurnalist should ask Castro about that,instead of always asking him same all questions about George W. Bush.We all know what he thinks of Bush,even 3 days ago Castro published an article about Bush calling him the all kinds of names,but we all know that,someone should ask him what was really happening back in the 1960s.

Yes, I too, feel that American policy towards Cuba should have been a little more subtle than the blunt weapons of ostracism and blockade. Much more might have been achieved long since. But in a very real sense it was not a bad thing for Castro himself: it has enabled him to survive against all the odds, as the symbol and defender of Cuban liberty, an accolade he does not really deserve. Clio the Muse 00:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues." --Richardrj talk email 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for that useful observation. My comments were by way of political analysis, rather than 'soapboxing', and were not intended to initiate debate on this or any other 'sensitive' matter. Besides, I do not need you to remind me what I should and what I should not say. Clio the Muse 07:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to your last seven words, which seemed to me to sit uneasily with the rest of the post. --Richardrj talk email 07:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If I were to respond to this it would be at the risk of initiating, God forbid, a 'debate.' All I will say is that I know Cuba: I have friends there. My assessment of Castro and his political role is based on direct experience. Beyond that I will not go, and more I will not say, other than that if you do not like my contributions I suggest you avoid reading them in future. I will not change my style, nor my mode of expression. Sober analysis and critique walk hand-in-hand. Clio the Muse 08:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nu Skool

What is Nu Skool as applied to art? What are the attributes of this style? I have found references to Nu Skool in tattooing. An aquaintance thinks it refers to bright cartoonish drawings, painting, tatoos, etc. Is there a standard definition? Cnodier

I could only find a "Nu Skool" in music, which has a breakbeat rhythm (where the pulse in 4/4 time is on the 2 and 4) and moves at about 120 to 140 beats per minute. I noted nothing in tatooing or in any other art form. Perhaps someone else will have better knowledge or better search luck. Bielle 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I did find the "Nu Skool Break" in music. I don't think it's related at all. Here are some references to "Nu Skool" or "New Skool"in art especially tattoo.

 [9] A brief definition.
 A tatoo shop A Tatoo Shop.
 [10] A tattooist mentions Nu Skool.

There are more of course. Perhaps it only a Tattoo term. Opinions?--Cnodier 12:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)